Misplaced Pages

:Wikiquette assistance: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:31, 15 August 2011 editAlex79818 (talk | contribs)278 edits →Breeches of WP:AGF by Wee Curry Monster← Previous edit Latest revision as of 05:37, 29 November 2020 edit undoJPxG (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators118,964 edits diff links more clear 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{short description|Historical document}}
:__NEWSECTIONLINK__
{{historical}}


'''Wikiquette assistance''' was an informal process, ], available to editors who felt that they were being treated uncivilly. There was about its effectiveness, and a consensus was formed to eliminate the Wikiquette assistance process. This page was formally ].
]
]


If you require assistance with resolving a content issue, please see ].
{{Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette assistance/Header}}


For a similar noticeboard which was also discontinued and marked historical, see ].
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{archivemainpage|Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette assistance}}
|maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 108
|minthreadsleft = 1
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(5d)
|archive = Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette assistance/archive%(counter)d
}}{{noindex}}


{| class="wikitable" style="float:left;vertical-align:top;"
<!-- NOTE: If the archive navbox needs a new row, update ]. This must be done manually, but the process should be pretty self-explanatory once you open the template. -->
| width="300" style="text-align:center;"| '''Search the ]'''

|-
= Active discussions =
|<inputbox>
<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line and below all other reports. -->
type=fulltext

prefix=Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette assistance
==Breeches of WP:AGF by ]==
break=no

width=40
In the discussion, ]'s attitude seems to continuously display an uncivil and accusatory tone towards other editors. This has also been in full display in his contributions at ] over the . He has made a host of accusations against myself and several other editors, to include IP , hounding, ], etc. Assistance and oversight would be highly appreciated, thank you.] (]) 20:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
searchbuttonlabel=Search

</inputbox>
:I wish it to be noted I was not informed of the WQA thread as required.
|}
:See or , see also his contribution history and the SPI report (not filed by me by the way) ]. Alex is the same editor as the IP, which I can prove with evidence gathered off-wiki but which will unfortunately out him so I cannot reveal it here.

:Alex is disrupting Falkland Islands and related articles as he has since 2007, this is just another example of him using wikipedia's processes to be disruptive. Some help would be very much appreciated, certainly by me. I've been targeted by this guy for 4 years. ] <small>]</small> 20:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

::Apologies for my late notice, I was temporarily distracted. Nevertheless my comments stand and seem to be reinforced by ]'s statements above. I will also point out the fact that the SPI was declined, and was supported by this user. Your input to this matter would be appreciated.] (]) 21:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

:::Apparently distracted by editing ]? You only informed him after you were told it was required and after Curry Monster had responded. Which is more warning than you gave me at ], where the rule is rather more obvious.

:::As to the substance, if anyone can find evidence of Alex - either as himself or as one of his IP sockpuppets - having ''ever'' assumed good faith in either myself or Curry Monster I would be interested in seeing it. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 21:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

::::SPI case was not declined, use of Checkuser was declined as the sock puppets are IP addresses. The SPI case is ongoing and looking at behaviour. Again I can prove the links between the IP and Alex but only by outing. Please also note that I had indicated I would resort to a WQA earlier today if this persisted. I suppose this is a result of ]. ] <small>]</small> 21:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

:::::There's some pretty compelling behavioural evidence that I have that I haven't highlighted at SPI (but am happy to do by e-mail) - and I'm hoping that even that's not needed since the evidence available publicly on the SPI is pretty strong on its own. I'm rather hoping that the personal stuff isn't necessary. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 21:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

::::::I make note of the threatening tone and manner of the responses above and the fact that these users have been accused of similar instances with a number of other users as evidenced by a previous instance in which their behavior led to an ARBCOM complaint . Note that I am not the only editor who's had negative dealings with these individuals and their uncivil behavior seems to continue even in this forum.] (]) 21:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
:::::::A frivolous arbcom case you started and ] anyone you thought might back you. Please note the repeated habit of canvassing is readily confirmed by an examination of his contribution history. ] <small>]</small> 21:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

:::::::It is worth mentioning at this stage therefore, that it was Alex that filed that Arbcom after three and a half years without a single acknowledged edit to Falklands topics, let alone as part of an active dispute. I believe he demonstrates my point about his persistent failure to ]. '']'' <small>'']''</small> 21:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
* This is a place where cooperative parties can receive neutral assistance to help them mutually resolve their differences. It's unlikely we're going to be able to help you here. ] (]) 22:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

::Thank you for your time. I've RFC'd regarding the specific issues being discussed; nevertheless if the editors' uncivil behavior continues I will raise the issue with ] and cite your response, unless you have a suggestion for what you believe is the proper forum in which to address these users' behavior. Thank you again.] (]) 22:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

== Break of AGF and NPA by ] ==
{{Archive top|result={{Resolved|&mdash;] (]) 19:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)}}}}
<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
* {{userlinks|Bzuk}}
* {{la|Republic P-47 Thunderbolt}}

After I a non-sensical sentence from ], I was accused of vandalism and threatened by ]. I subsequently started a on the talk page; ] added nothing to the question, but adds further insults threats.

Please advise: Is ] justified in accusing me of vandalism and making threats without even taking part in the discussion? --] (]) 16:49, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
:It was inappropriate on the part of both Bzuk and yourself to edit war over the disputed sentence. There is no "right side" in an edit war, but you should have discussed a solution to the dispute rather than repeatedly removing the sentence. Bzuk warning you for vandalism was inappropriate, IMO. I saw absolutely nothing to suggest that you were acting in bad faith at all, much less committing ]. Also, when 91 started a discussion on the talk page, Bzuk's comments were hostile and inflammatory, including threats of a block. In addition, comment removal by Bzuk was not appropriate, per ], as the removed comment was not a personal attack. All this being said, 91, your part was arguably just as problematic. You edit warred, and you left several unconstructive and inflammatory comments to the same discussion.

:In sum, you both acted inappropriately. If you can acknowledge this, preferably redact your uncivil comments or at least resolve to work ] from now on, I see no reason why you can't work this content dispute out to a satisfactory solution for all parties. <span style='color:black'><font face="helterskelter">Swarm</font></span> <sup>] | ]</sup> 20:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

::This is a very convoluted and complex back-and-forth that recently took place. Refer to my edit history for . Here is the pertinent sequence of events, with my comments:
#] makes a derogatory comment regarding another user. as it is on my "watchlist", I note there is conflict ensuing)]
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#

On my part, I can appreciate the IP's frustration with my efforts to use a BRD approach and jumped to the conclusion that he was inflaming the situation, but did not understand the need for trying to denigrate any editors in the process. FWiW ] (]) 21:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC). See: FWiW ] (]) 21:48, 7 August 2011 (UTC).
:Concur with Swarm. With regards to redaction, it's better to strike them out rather than just remove them. Given Bzuk's good faith response, I don't think any additional action is required on their part. ] (]) 22:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
::Yep, thank you for your very reasonable response, Bzuk. <span style='color:black'><font face="helterskelter">Swarm</font></span> <sup>] | ]</sup> 05:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}

== Charges of "spamming" and unspecified "policy violations" ==

<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
* {{userlinks|Camelbinky}}
* {{userlinks|Gyrobo}}
* {{lwt|WikiProject New York}}, {{lut|DanielPenfield}}
*On Thursday, August 4, I made a series of ] additions to all of the ] county articles (for example: , , , , , , etc.). These consisted of a "Budget" section with a bulleted list for outlays, another for receipts, and a fully-cited statement of the county-specific sales tax. Note that it is easy to verify that precedents exist for this type of section in articles about government entities: ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ].
*On Saturday, August 6, ] reverted, without explanation, and contrary to ], a subset of these articles (to wit: , , , , , , , , , , )
*I subsequently restored most, but apparently not all of the original changes (to wit: , , , , , , , , , )
*] then left an insulting message in this , claiming that "County budget sections are violations of policy" without citing any policy whatsoever and then leveling the charge of "spamming these sections onto articles" and concluding that "You were reverted for a reason, putting them back was not a good idea without discussing" while conveniently overlooking the fact that he or she did not have the courtesy to provide a reason for the original revert. (Note that ] accurately states that "''A reversion is a complete rejection of the work of another editor and if the reversion is not adequately supported then the reverted editor may find it difficult to assume good faith.''")
*] subsequently publicized the accusations that "] are being spammed with ] section headers" and that "I have tried reverting those counties but have been reverted by same spammer" in this .
*] then reverted all of what I restored for a second time (e.g., ) and reverted the untouched remaining original edits for good measure (e.g., ), again using the "undo" feature rather than providing "a valid and informative explanation" in the edit summaries and added the charge that the additions "]" to the ).
*Outraged at the accusation of "]" "]" content that " nothing useful]]", I left a phrase-by-phrase rebuttal of these false, and, quite frankly, malicious charges in these fully-cited .
*] subsequently left a condescending follow-up seemingly demanding "justification" for adding a budget section to county articles at all: "Instead of creating a large table refuting how Camelbinky came across to you, it would be more productive to discuss why the data you've copied and pasted into each article should remain there." in this . He also repeated the charge of ] and made outlandish claims of "put the onus on other editors to thoroughly research county government operations" and "there's no guarantee that someone who actually did that would end up organizing the data that way" which run completely contrary to ] and ].
*] then left what appeared to be a magnanimous appeal to ] in this and a "generous" offer to let the changes stand. (Note that as of this writing, nobody has restored the changes.) On second glance, it appears to me to be a whitewash that is also intended to further discredit me by:
#Characterizing the additions as "controversial changes" and as something "the rest of us really don't understand".
#Characterizing my as "Questioning the intentions of other editors, and throwing random policies, guidelines and essays into a discussion, without really relating them to the topic at hand"
*Finally, I wrote a to the "demand for justification" and filed this ].


<FONT SIZE=4>To make it clear: I am no longer interested in whether my additions are retained or not. However, I believe I am well within my rights to insist that ] and ] publicly retract the following accusations:
*That my additions were "violations of policy" and "unencyclopedic" and that I was "spamming these sections onto articles" as claimed in ]
*That I "thr random policies, guidelines and essays into a discussion, without really relating them to the topic at hand" as claimed about my in ]
*That "Our NY county articles are being spammed with unencyclopedic section headers", "I have been reverted by same spammer", "information DanielPenfield keeps adding to these articles provides nothing useful", and "additions you've been adding to county articles have no encyclopedic value" in ]</FONT>


I would also like to see ] and ] publicly state that they will permanently abandon the use of the specious ] and ] claims (in any form, including "provides nothing useful") as "justification" for deleting content from Misplaced Pages.
::-- ] (]) 22:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
:::You really can't use this board to force an apology from anyone. Trust me, I've tried. If you want Camelbinky and Gyrobo to apologize you should discuss your edits with them and explain calmly why you think they are beneficial.

:::To be honest, I can see the rationale to revert these edits; they mostly just add empty framework without any real material. The referenced material on the taxes is good, but the framework on the rest of the budget is lacking in any detail. This technically isn't spamming, but when you do this across a wide range of pages within a short period of time it can be seen as disruptive. If you want to create sections on municipality budgets you should be prepared to write something in them. ''']]]''' 22:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

::::I really don't have anything to add to this, other than to recap it from my perspective. DanielPenfield, by his own admission, added empty "strawman" section headers to roughly fifty articles. Camelbinky reverted some of these, but DanielPenfield reverted those reversions, all without explanation. Camelbinky then left DanielPenfield a message explaining his reasoning for the initial reversions, and began a discussion on WPNY. I agreed with Camelbinky's assessment of DanielPenfield's additions as nonconstructive, and then used rollback on all instances of them. ] allows widespread reversions in situations like these, because the discussion leading to it was centralized. Rather than engage Camelbinky and myself over the merits of his edits, DanielPenfield immediately Wikilawyered, made what could be considered personal attacks on Camelbinky, and accused me of edit warring. When I asked DanielPenfield to calmly discuss his additions, he responded by filing this. I did not accuse anybody of anything, and I stand by what I did say. My opinion is that from the outset of this discussion, DanielPenfield has been combative and difficult to form consensus with. --] (]) 22:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

::::*In response to ]: The problem with Misplaced Pages is that everybody "skims" what I write and responds with these nonsequiturs. '''I am looking for a retraction of the malicious and libelous accusations from ], ], and ], nothing more, nothing less.''' Also, your definition of "disruptive" does not appear to match ]. And it looks to me like you are imposing a higher standard than ] and ] require and your higher standard is in direct conflict with ] which states "As long as any of the facts or ideas added to the article would belong in a "finished" article, they should be retained.". -- ] (]) 23:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)''Strawman'' implies intentionality making articles weaker -- that's not how things are done on Misplaced Pages. There are templates for things like references needed, and you can always make suggestions on the talk page, but putting non-constructive text on an article isn't good. Note that WP:REVEXP is a non-binding essay, not a policy. It would have been nicer if Camelbinky had left a single explanation somewhere when he did the multiple reverts, but other than that, it's have to find much wrong with his behavior. Nothing about Gyrobo's actions seems improper to me. ] (]) 23:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
:*Again, looks nobody wants to read what I wrote all that closely or click through the links to verify that the claim of "spamming" and ] is false (not to mention that ] and ] are specious arguments). BTW, ] clearly states "A "straw-man proposal" is a brainstormed simple proposal intended to generate discussion of its disadvantages and to ''provoke the generation of new and better proposals''. -- ] (]) 23:24, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
:::Per your own statement regarding what a straw-man proposal is, you should have made a proposal. ] would be more appropriate than just going through and adding the empty section headers to every article. Perhaps in such a discussion others would have been able to point out to you the drawbacks and help you flesh out your proposal to where it would not have met with opposition.] (]) 00:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
::::*In this and this you accuse me of ]ing and unspecified "policy violations". Are you or are you not going to retract this malicious and libelous allegation? -- ] (]) 00:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
:::::*In regard to "libelous", please see ]. Dial it down, please. ] (]) 01:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
{{od2}} There were a few instances where Camelbinky's behavior was inappropriate throughout this ordeal. If you're going to mass revert someone with no edit summary, you need to start a discussion somewhere. Daniel was initially reverted without ''any explanation whatsoever''. Camelbinky's later comment on Daniel's talk page was unhelpful, particularly, "spamming", which is an inflammatory bad faith accusation. Also, their comment, "You were reverted for a reason, putting them back was not a good idea", was not appropriate, remembering that no reason whatsoever was given, and they did not provide a link to the discussion. I don't see any major problems with Gyrobo's conduct. Content-wise, I'm more inclined to agree with Gyrobo and Camelbinky, and per ] and ] they are 100% justified in reverting those actions. However, Daniel's contributing, and discussing, in good faith, and has provided detailed and intricate arguments, and the other two users would do well to extend the same courtesy. Regards, <span style='color:black'><font face="helterskelter">Swarm</font></span> <sup>] | ]</sup> 03:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
:::First off, my behavior was not inappropriate. I am under no obligation to provide an edit summary, those are completely voluntary at my discretion to provide or not. When there are multiple issues with the person's additions and they look and feel like obvious problem to the average user (which they appear to have consensus that they were not appropriate additions) and I have to revert on multiple pages then I do not see a reason to explain. Second, using the word "spamming", I'm sorry I dont see any other word for what was put on all those pages, perhaps I will invest in a thesaurus. As you point out BRD I'd like to point out the purpose of BRD, be BOLD, which Daniel did, Revert which I did, then instead of discussing Daniel reverted my revert, '''I am the one''' that started the discussion which should have been the onus of Daniel. Which he should have done before doing any edits in the first place anyway, these were edits the Community should have discussed first. When I said "Our NY county articles" I was including the ENTIRE community, including Daniel. No ownership. Detailed and intricate arguments? Of what? Of how I'm a dick? I'm willing to stipulate for the record that I'm a dick, but that's not a matter for this board actually, despite the name of this noticeboard. Gyrobo and I are the only two who put forth why, according to policy, the additions should not stand. All Daniel did was provide snippets of policy out of context to show why I'm a dick.] (]) 00:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
::::WP policy is to leave edit summaries, per ]. ] (]) 01:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
:::::Does '''not''' say it is mandatory and I'm willing to put it forth at the Village pump to see if the Community feels that is how it should be applied, because it is not applied as mandatory and it does not matter the literal wording of a policy. Policy is simply the best consensus written version that could be made of what the community has ''done in the past''; to put it succinctly "policy is descriptive, not proscriptive". I dont have to leave edit summaries, and if someone wants to slap my wrist for not leaving them go ahead and try. Ridiculous this discussion is about leaving an edit summary about a revert on an edit we all have agreed should not have been made. And when you do a copy and paste edit on around 50 articles, each edit which should not have been done, that is called spamming. If there's a better word, please enlighten me. However, this is ridiculous. Nothing was done wrong. I explained myself in a discussion at the NY wikiproject, I did the step in BRD that Daniel refused to do. This discussion is useless and as far as I'm concerned done with. I wont be watching because nothing will happen.] (]) 02:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
{{od2}}I ''never'' said that you were required to leave an edit summary. I said, "If you're going to mass revert someone with no edit summary, you need to start a discussion somewhere." That is not an opinion, that is an explict provision of ]: "Be helpful: explain your changes." Deliberately failing to explain your edits is, plain and simple, disruption, and I strongly encourage you to start a straw poll about how the community feels about the question: "Is explaining your edits mandatory?" <span style='color:black'><font face="helterskelter">Swarm</font></span> <sup>] | ]</sup> 23:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

== Andy Dingley ==
{{User|Andy Dingley}} has, in the past dozen hours or so:
*
*.
*Claims he discovered , but .
::In addition, .
*
*Continually dismisses my edits as robot like, and continually suggests or implies I should be replaced with a robot script (, , , ), not in a helpful manner but a dismissive one. I have shown an example on his talk page of where I left a link a bot would have removed, and provided justification for including the link.
*Claims that some bookspam I'm removing is a cited source when it is not (, ) (the bookspam in question may be seen in the first link).
I have brought up him calling me a SPA multiple times, and he has not apologized, but continued to call me bot-like. I have pointed out repeatedly that the book in question was not being cited, and another editor has explained that the link for the book is spam. I have explained to him in the edit warring noticeboard that I've only reverted twice (just as much as him).

This user has shown no/little respect for other users, and is contrary to the point of illogic and obstruction of the site's goals. ] (]) 02:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

:I am pleased to see Andy Dingley's conceited words and deeds being called to account. ] (]) 04:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
::* I presume this is a response to the pig's ear you made at ], where you confused it with ] and rewrote the whole article on that basis? Or was it when I corrected you at Commons for creating a non-existent van manufacturer called ]? ] (]) 23:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
:::His conceit lies in his belief that his opinions - in particular the cases mentioned above - are correct! ] (]) 07:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

* Ian, how do you justify to be an appropriate reaction to a new editor? I would remind you again of ]. ] (]) 23:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
** I agree with Ian's edits; the user clearly had a COI and was spamming their books all over the place. It's difficult to assume good-faith in such instances. <b>] ]</b> 23:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
::: Given your ] to another new editor at ] (a new editor who behaved exactly as we ask them to), you're hardly a good example of how to behave towards new editors. ] (]) 23:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
::::I justify it thusly: I'm not weak on spam, even if I don't catch everything. And Andy, why is it that you can't defend your actions at all, that you have to go and draw attention to other users? Seems to show that you've got a problem. That you have editors coming out of nowhere to agree that your behavior is unacceptable but noone is helping you in your attempts at character assassination shows that you've got to learn to be more kind to your fellow users. I've dealt with a lot of bookspam (I edit a lot of religion related articles, and ministers, new-age gurus, and freethinkers of all sorts want their opinions heard), so pardon me if I don't feel like explaining the concept to someone who apparently doesn't get it. You could just apologize, back off, and change your ways, but you argue. If you want to prove me wrong, apologize for your behavior (not just to me but to others you've mistreated), accept responsibility for your actions, and change your ways. ] (]) 23:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
::::: That's exactly what I expected from Andy. Not much else to say. <b>] ]</b> 03:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
::::::: Actually Jamie, I'm sorry we've any dispute over this, because I see a lot of your edits removing spam and vandalism and generally they're all good stuff. In this case though, you were wrong. You were wrong because it's a useful link from a potentially useful new editor (who not surprisingly, has since disappeared). Secondly, they didn't spam the link at all, they already did what we ask them to. Fine, you made a mistake, it happens. Raising it at COI though...
::::::: The trouble with reverting vandalism is that after a while it skews your view of other editors. Not ''every'' addition is spam. Not ''every'' IP editor is a vandal. Look into the abyss for too long though and the abyss starts to look back into you - you see everyone outside the cabal as a threat to be resisted. This is a wrong principle, and it was wrong in the specific case here. ] (]) 23:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

::::::Hear! Hear! ] (]) 07:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
::Dingley's out-of-left-field comments directed at me were based on him not reading my own comments very carefully. Hard to tell if it was a true personal attack, or just a need for a new lens prescription. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 12:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
:::{{User|Andy Dingley}} occasionally resorts to a robust turn of phrase when exasperated by obdurate stupidity. Don't we all? As my very modest contributions are often in a field to which Andy also contributes, I have some length of experience of his work here. I find that he always has the best interests of the project in mind. I fully agree with his support of new editors who happen to actually know something against excessive pettifogging enforcement of what they think are 'rules' by overzealous policekids. How about climbing down off your indignation and improving content somewhere instead, like I would prefer to be doing instead of wasting my time with this storm in a teacup. ] (]) 00:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
::::I initially ] and considered your comments ], but looking over your past conversations with Andy Dingley, I'm having extreme difficulty with that. How about you and him develop a sense of ]? "Obdurate stupidity?" What exactly are you refering to here? Are you refering to me removing ], , or what? Aside from the bookspam issue, I have not dissed Andy's contributions to articlespace, but regardless of the quality of his work, ] is not a guideline, it is POLICY. It is one of the five pillars of this site and one of the things that determine if someone is qualified to work on this project (civility is what makes it a project instead of a battleground).
::::At any rate, the only person defending Andy Dingley has called stupid those of us Andy has insulted. Shows the sort of company he keeps, eh? ] (]) 01:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
:::::OK, I apologise for "obdurate stupidity". It was meant as a generalisation, but in retrospect it is hard to see how you would not take it as meaning you, and it is far too strong in this instance anyway. Since we are here at Wikiquette assistance, the issue is not one of content but of behaviour and attitude. In general terms, learning to become an editor has been made a difficult and disheartening process by all the rules (I am not inclined to study the precise local jargon) and their often peremptory and arbitrary application by those (not necessarily applicable here) too young and inexperienced to have developed humility and good judgement. This is what I find exasperating. It is basically a question of ]. You may not think it applies in this instance, and you may be right, for all I know. As I see it, editors whose primary contribution is in policing need to be very careful not to dissuade potential good editors, when I find so much of the content remains so feeble and the pace of improvement so pathetic - so much so in my field of engineering that I begin to think the task is a hopeless one. While everyone has their own form of contribution to make, to me, creation and expansion of good quality articles is still the prime task at hand, and I am ashamed for the project when obstacles are placed in the path of that, albeit in good faith. While he can (and does) speak for himself, I think Andy thinks the same way. I am disappointed that you should think I have a history of incivility. ] (]) 09:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)<small>edited 09:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)</small>
::::::You're right about Dingley being "too young and inexperienced to have developed humility and good judgement." Give it time. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 15:21, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
:::::Considering his 180-degrees-wrong interpretation of comments I made over on commons, Ding-Dong might be suffering from the same level of obdurateness. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 04:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
::::::Thanks for the nostalgia trip Bugs, I haven't heard that insult since I was about nine.
::::::re your actions at Commons, they're in relation to that, ''If you block me again, I'll have to ask that all the images I uploaded here be deleted, on the grounds that they are all copyright violations'' - i.e. you were prepared to lie over image copyright, just to disrupt Commons. ] (]) 23:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
:::::::Which insult in particular? You need to be more specific. Anyway, as you may have observed, I did make good on my threat and all my images are now deleted on bogus copyright violation claims, as per the Alexander Liptak methodology. The reason I called the so-called leaders there "clueless" is that they don't see the implications of what they did when they let him get away with it. It would render the "irrevocable" rule unenforceable and obsolete. If you think that's just fine, I don't know what to tell you. ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 23:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

{{od}}
Everyone here's human (except the real bots). That's why we have WP:CIVIL. WP:BITE is important, but it is an extension of WP:CIVIL, which applies to any user regardless of how long they've been on. ] (]) 17:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

* I see that I'm now being threatened with AN/I (Oooh!) by Ian, after he has now removed the book reference six times, ] of them just today. What an interesting view of policy and the value of useful editing you must have.
: I would remind you that I'm still the only one who has bothered to ''read'' the book in question, but you want it removed because either the URL offends you, the author of the content offends you, or the content (of a book you haven't read, on a subject you have no interest in) offends you. Despite others favouring its restoration, you're so far against this that 3RR becomes just one of those rules for the little people. You're really going to love it as an Admin. ] (]) 23:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

{{od}}
This is all trivial stuff. My interaction with Andy Dingley proves to me that he is prickly only when necessary, and remarkable open to good ideas. I don't see any need for community censure. ] (]) 23:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
:Wait a sec - did you just call him what I think you called him? If so, he might need to file his own WQA report! ←] <sup>'']''</sup> ]→ 23:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

== Regarding the article 'Treschow (D.-N. family)' ==
{{NWQA|content dispute ] (]) 22:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)}}
<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
* {{userlinks|TuriTerj}}
* {{la|Treschow (Dano-Norwegian family)}}
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
The article ] has experienced the recent arrival of a user, ],

* who in his/her edits shows lacking respect for earlier and other users' contributions, which he/she, often in violent manners, has removed and replaced with his/her own,
* whose behaviour is considered as aggressive,
* and whose contributions seem to be encumbered with lacking objectivity to the subject concerned. (The Treschow family are aristocrats, rich and famous, and such people attract the negative attention of individuals who, when on Misplaced Pages, often have other mainsprings than the purely academical.)

In addition, the user has added incorrect and/or unnuanced information (and my own corrections of them have been removed), e.g. the sentence ‘nobility was abolished in Norway in 1821’.

The mentioned user dominates the article, like he/she owns it, and contributions by others are consistently removed and replaced with his/hers. It has become impossible to work on the article, since this user most likely will remove other contributions.

I will first of all ask about the following:

1<sup>st</sup>) Whether one on basis of the article's revision history (from 1 May) sees indications of the same.

2<sup>nd</sup>) How the problem may be solved.

--- ] (]) 12:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

: It's not a good article; there are no references. Find some that support your edits, use the talk page, and open an ] to get more editors involved. ] (]) 01:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

::Well, there are some refs now in the Literature and sources section but no inline citations. Translations of those would be a good start, anyone game? <span style="text-shadow: 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em #DDDDDD">--] (])</span> 01:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

: I have thought, and I believe that much of the problem may be solved by presenting to the user TuriTerj the following fundamental principle on Misplaced Pages: respect for the work (efforts, etc.) of other users, and thus that contributions happen mainly as additions to the existing text, and not by removing other users' contributions and replacing them with what oneself has written. I suggest that e.g. an administrator, if recognising the occurrence of such removal of text, may instruct the mentioned user so that similar 'article revolutions' may be avoided.

: --- ] (]) 15:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
::This is not a Misplaced Pages principle. In fact, it would lead to an unreadable non-encyclopedic website. Note the text that appears below the save page "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." ] (]) 19:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Aaemn784's edits are of low quality (see the inconsistent narrative in the section "1812 ennoblement"), he removes relevant information, and makes unsourced and misleading claims, e.g. that the family is of noble "origin" (the family is not of noble "origin", but a branch of the family, not the entire family, was historically noble, in the 19th century). Whether the Treschow family is rich or not has nothing to do with the edits in questions, and does absolutely not waive normal quality standards. (The persons who are "rich and famous", assuming he is referring to the ones inhabiting Fritzøehus, and who are using the name Treschow today are not aristocrats in any country, btw., and wouldn't be aristocrats even if Norway had still recognized the existence of the nobility as such. That's another misleading claim.) Aaemn784 has also refused to discuss his problematic edits on the relevant article ] where I brought up his misleading claims months ago. "The problem may be solved" when User:Aaemn784 starts to discuss his edits. ] (]) 11:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

: Hi.

: You have presented much incorrect information, e.g. that the nobility allegedly was abolished in 1821. It was not. The Nobility Law of 1821 initiated a long-range dissolution of noble privileges and titles, ending in the 1890s. Despite this, you have several times removed my correction and keep claiming that ‘the nobility’ was ‘abolished in 1821’. (However, I see that I could have provided an inline reference.)

: In addition, you seem (this is my impression) very obsessed with making a point of allegedly reductive factors, e.g. the Treschows' ‘subordinate’ position compared with the German family Tresckow (repeated three different places in the article, and even extensively in what is supposed to be a general and short description of a picture). It is neither directly relevant nor especially encyclopedical to compare the Treschows, who are (historically) important within Norway, with some foreign family who happen to have a name which has similar spelling, but different origin. You cannot use a German family's rank ''in Germany'' to ‘reduce’ a Norwegian family's rank ''in Norway'' unless this happens in a relevant context.

: You include in the text much general information which can be found by visiting each article concerned. The Treschow article is not supposed to give a general summary of every single topic that the article comes in touch with.

: Examples:

: ‘The agnatic descendants of Michael Treschow are nevertheless included in the Yearbook of the Danish Nobility, '''which is published by a private organisation.'''’ (Can easily be found by visiting YDN's article.)

: ‘Also her children bear the surname Treschow, '''but would not have been considered as noble according to the letters patent, as noble status is inherited only patrilineally.'''’ (Common knowledge, and available in the topic's general articles, e.g. ].)

: ‘'''Some other Norwegian families are known to have adopted coats of arms (or variations thereof) of unrelated families with similar names.'''’ (Common knowledge.)

: ‘By the provisions of the patent, the patrilineal descendants of Michael Treschow, including unmarried females, were '''considered''' noble.’ (They were not ‘considered’ as noble; they ''were'' noble.)

: ‘ wherefore this branch of the family became a part of the '''untitled''' nobility ’ (In Denmark and Norway, the nobility ''is'' untitled; the others belong to the barons' estate, the counts' estate, etc.)

: Another problem is that you are too bombastic in your interpretation of terms. For example, I wrote ‘family seat’. A family seat is, as a descriptive term, the seat of any family, also farmer families. To this, you wrote in the talk page: ‘The term "family seat" has no legal meaning in Norway today and is misleading, Fritøzehus, completed in 1898, is today inhabited by Stein Erik Hagen and Mille-Marie Treschow, and will presumably be inherited by a member of the (un-noble) Stang family at some point. Fritøzehus has never been a family seat (setegård) in the legal sense, ’ Indeed, Fritzøehus was not a ''seat farm'', and that is why I wrote ''family seat''. A portion of humbleness would have prevented this misunderstanding of yours.

: Otherwise, before expecting that people shall discuss with you, you should adopt a less aggressive way of behaviour on Misplaced Pages. I would normally seek a personal conversation with the editor concerned, but in this case, I found it both uncomfortable and unrealistic.

: You might find the following page useful:

: --- ] (]) 13:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

1) The Norwegian Treschow family has adopted not only a name which is indistinguishable from that of the German family, but even the coat of arms of this much older family. It's highly relevant and informative to mention this prominently, especially when discussing the coat of arms that they adopted from the German family, and to distinguish it from coats of arms used previously by the members of the Norwegian Treschow family.

2) I don't agree that the information on how noble status is inherited in this case (not universally) is "common knowledge" (it's only common knowledge for persons interested in nobility). The Treschow name is today used by many persons who are not members of what was defined as a noble family in the past, including the heirs to alleged "family seat". This is helpful and relevant information.

3) I don't object to rewording the information on the abolition of noble privileges/status. If you had explained your position in the first case, we could have found a more acceptable wording. However, the accepted position is that the concept of nobility does not exist in Norway today. If that was the case, it would somehow be officially acknowledged (by law, by the Government).

4) The term family seat is misleading for a number of reasons, both because it is the common translation of setegård or a term frequently denoting such a concept, and also because the current residents are mostly not members of the family that was historically noble. It's an expensive building from the turn of the century, but not the "seat" of anyone else than the ones residing there. Describing it as a family seat is anachronistic and misleading.

5) The nobility in Denmark and Norway is not always untitled. Untitled nobility is the common term for, well, the untitled nobility, and I fail to see what's the problem with that expression. The Wedel Jarlsberg family is, for example, a titled family whose head is lensgreve and whose younger members are barons. Multiple Danish families are titled nobles where the title is not tied to an estate/len.

6) The fact that other families have adopted (variations of) the coats of arms of unrelated families was added by yourself as far as I can tell; I merely moved it from the introduction to a more appropriate place in the article and reworded it. ] (]) 17:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
:The question for ''this'' page is whether anyone needs help solving civility issues, not content. Please move the discussion to the article talk page. If you need more eyes on it, try ]. Thanks! ] (]) 22:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

== ]' assumption of bad faith ==
{{archive top|result=* Editor {{user-c|Gerardw}} has suggested the discussion continue elsewhere. &mdash;] (]) 19:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)}}
<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
* {{userlinks|Anglicanus}}
* {{la|Googie Withers}}
* {{la|Spike Milligan}}
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
] and I disagree about the lede of a biographical article for a British subject usually known by a nickname should be set out. I have tried to explain my position and commented only on the issue and not on the user. Unfortunately I feel his mode of reply, in refusing to enter into proper discussion but blindly reverting and persistently accusing me of disruption, is distinctly unhelpful to resolving the underlying dispute. I have taken it up politely on his talk but it did not produce any change. I hope Anglicanus can understand that there is a difference between "an editor who disagrees with me" and "a disruptive editor". ] (]) 15:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
:These claims are completely false. I have already patiently tried - several times - explaining to ] the reasons why people's names are given as they are in these articles but he continues to assert that this is "incorrect" based on nothing except his opinion of what is "ugly" and what is a "correct" name. Frankly, he is being extremely tiresome and hypocritical on this matter. Everything he accuses me of more accurately describes his own behaviour. ] (]) 15:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

::In the two cases cited, the persons concerned are widely known by their nicknames ('Googie' and 'Spike'), The articles will clearly need to give their full names as well. However per English/Irish usage, the nickname is ''never'' inserted into the full name - this seems to be US practice, but I've never seen it done with Spike (Or with Edward "Ed" Miliband", as someone tried to do with his article). We should follow common practice, not invent arbitrary rules. ] (]) 16:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

:::First of all, they are not just their "nicknames" - they became their usual or common names. They are the names which they would no doubt usually use themselves and usually sign with. Secondly, what evidence do you have that the "common practice" you say should be followed doesn't somehow apply to English and Irish people? Surely that would be - by definition - to "invent arbitary rules". Unless you can provide such evidence then your comment is only an unsubstantiated opinion. And it is false to claim that it "never" occurs with British and Irish people as it frequently does so - as with the ] article and hundreds of others. ] (]) 16:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

::::None of that is of the slightest significance - and the ] article doesn't follow British practice either - or can you provide external ] that show this usage? ] (]) 16:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

:::::All of my comments have been considerably more "significant" than anything you or Sam have so far provided. And you haven't provided any evidence to support "British practice" on this matter. I have discovered that Sam has been arguing for his opinion on this matter at ]. He is of course, perfectly entitled to do this, but he isn't entitled to insist that his opinion is the "correct" one and that the common practice (which actually is supported in the MOS) is "incorrect". It is very arrogant for any editor to act in this way. ] (]) 16:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

::::::Can you provide a link to the relevant MOS section? ] (]) 16:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
''(Outdent)'' Our own page ] makes no British/American distinction and I personally (a Briton) have often seen Forename "Nickname" Surname – until today it had never occurred to me that that may be American usage. If anyone has a Debrett's or similar British style guide to hand, that would be handy. '''However''', since this is posted in "Wikiquette", may I suggest that ''who is right'' is not so much our business as whether decorum and etiquette has been/is followed... &#10013;''']]]''' 19:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

:] also accused me of disruption after I made an edit, with strong supporting evidence, changing 'Wellbeing' to 'Well-being' leaving the edit summary, "Well-being is perfectly acceptable in British English and is 10 times more common in usage than wellbeing and is also the COD spelling of the word." in the article ]. I support ] complaint. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 00:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
I'm not seeing incivility issues here (disagreeing with someone isn't incivil.) There is already a discussion at ]; please continue there. ] (]) 01:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}

== Incivility and assuming bad faith by ] ==
{{cot|title=Closed discussion}}
{{archive top|Like the ANI thread, this isn't achieving anything. If any editor in this mess clearly crosses the line, then that can be reported at ANI or similar venues. All we have here is a very long he-said-she-said thread. Sarek's trout was appropriate. ] ] 18:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)}}
<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
* {{userlinks|Roscelese}}
* {{la|A Catholic Statement on Pluralism and Abortion}}
* {{la|Catholics for Choice}}
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
I am almost always on the opposite side of a dispute from this user, but it has almost always been amicable and I have never seen her act the way she has in the past couple of days:
* a user's argument "stupid"; not uncivil in and of itself, but uncivil in the context of the following comments.
* bad faith: "we can't remove it just because users who disagree with CFC want to pretend that no one important agrees with them."
*After I her to assume good faith, she .
* user of deliberately lying then again assumes bad faith: "I doubt that would have the pro-church-hierarchy effect you might wish for"
* her that she was treating the article ], and she and me of simply harboring a grudge against her, then used the edit summary when I said I wasn't harboring a grudge.
*The discussion moved to ], where she assuming bad faith.

I have a lot of respect for this user, but this is persistent and has gone over the line. Given my own history, I'm not in the position to be the civility police, but this behavior from Roscelese is persistent and needs to be brought to the attention of the community. ] (]) 20:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

:The problem you describe includes nothing of ]'s sometimes pointless but otherwise point-of-view contributions. Roscelese is responding to the skewed contributions of that user. ] (]) 20:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

:Binksternet makes a good point. Further, Roscelese seems to be getting a bit impatient with NYyankee as well, and I can't say I blame them. I quote, per NYyankee's diffs: "Assuming good faith is generally a good idea in the ''absence'' of evidence of bad faith. But that's not the case here." "You're either misremembering or deliberately lying when you claim that I wished to remove the USCCB statement. I hope it's the former." (A perfectly civil statement, not a "half-accusation of deliberately lying" — what's a half-accusation of lying, anyway? Any sentence that contains the word "lying"?) Etc. To my mind, NYyankee's ] is ruder than Roscelese's attempts to inject logic in the discussion. "Reminding" an established editor to AGF is both time-wasting and provocative, NYyankee. Do you really suppose Roscelese is unaware of such well-known guidelines and policies as ] and ]? ] | ] 21:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC).
:: half-accusation is a sarcastic accusation. Imagine if someone told you "You are either stupid or you made a silly mistake here. I hope it is the latter". You and everyone would realize you have been sarcastically called "stupid". In the quoted sentence above, I was sarcastically called a lier.
:: Second: inject "logic on the discussion"? I ask you to read the diffs in question. User Roscelese was claiming that the CFC should be classified as a Catholic organization, irrespective of the judgement from the USCCB, because she says the USCCB is merely a "pressure group" with no authority to say which organizations are Catholic! She eventually gave up that claim. -- ] (]) 21:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
:::JorgeP, all you're doing is making it painfully clear that your problem is with my worldview, not with my tone. ] (] &sdot; ]) 21:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
:::: Clearly the opposite. I would easily coedit an article with a Marxist, but if he starts accusing me of being a "stupid oppressing bourgeois" I would take him to Wikiquette. You were brought here because of "stupid", "n00b", "lying", "idiotic", "nonsense" and all other insults you hurl all the time. -- ] (]) 23:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
:::::It's a good thing no one accused you of being a stupid oppressing bourgeois, then, or anything similar. Why don't we confine our discussion to things that are actually taking or have taken place, and not to a) pointless hypotheticals that map onto nothing that has actually happened or b) suggestions that I couldn't possibly be right about anything because I follow Misplaced Pages's policy on religious self-identification instead of the policy of an external organization with a political agenda? ] (] &sdot; ]) 23:53, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
:::::: I said elsewhere: if you keep accusing a person's actions of being "stupid", "idiotic", "nonsense", worthy of a "n00b", "what a joke", everyone understands that you are '''insulting that person'''. It seems you are trying to game the Wikiquette system by repeatedly insulting people's actions (so everyone understands the insult is directed at the person), hoping you can get away because you never directly insulted the person. -- ] (]) 00:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
:: Are you agreeing with that my edits were POV and therefore I deserved to be attacked? I reject both parts of that statement. -- ] (]) 22:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
::No, but I have to admit, some of her recent edits have concerned me a bit as well. --] 21:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
:::Can you specify which ones, S? (My view on the situation is that I'm perfectly content to work with these users and I think that we can still do a great deal of productive work together in spite of our political differences, but I just don't see the value in asking me or anyone else to pretend that they are ''not'' trying to push a right-wing POV or that their interest in proper sourcing standards and other Misplaced Pages policies, such as BLP, is ''not'' secondary to this goal.) ] (] &sdot; ]) 21:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
:::::{{diff|Catholics for Choice|prev|444306976|This edit summary}}, most recently... --] 21:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
::::::I don't really see the issue. It's a comment on content, not on a contributor. ] (] &sdot; ]) 22:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
:::::::When you call a change "nonsense", you're definitely implying something about the editor who made that change. --] 16:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
::::::::I disagree, but I'll keep it in mind in the future. ] (] &sdot; ]) 17:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
:::: I assure you that I '''am''' trying to reach truth in Misplaced Pages, but every edit I make and you disagree is followed by accusations of bad faith. You call me dishonest (by implying I am lying) all the time, and sometimes you call my arguments "stupid", worthy of a "n00b", and uses words like "", "don't waste our time", and "what the hell are you trying to do". One small example is . I was hones here; I think that having 9 pages of text on a subject that is borderline unnotable is an invitation for misinformation, because few Wikipedians will bother to verify the quotations on that text (even if it is sourced with many references, they '''won't be verified''' by anyone but you and Binksternet). You may disagree, but did you really need to start personal attacks? Also see http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Catholics_for_Choice#Recent_edits_by_JP. The user here was angry because I used the sentence "expel the Vatican from the UN", which is a quotation from them, found on their website. She falsely accused me of taking this quotation from "enemies" (this is only true if CFC is an enemy of itself). I was actually nice and sugar-coated the real quotation, which was precisely "get the Vatican, the Holy See, booted from the UN". Anyway, even if she disagrees with including that quotation, was the incivility necessary? -- ] (]) 22:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
::::: One small food for thought: there has been years since I ever met this level of incivility (many years ago, one user called me "Linux zealot" and accused me of "poisoning Misplaced Pages"). I have met many users who disagree with me, but they usually respect me. Even Binksternet, who is on your side, hasn't behaved the way you did. He may disagree with me, resent my presence on Misplaced Pages or even despise me (I don't know), but he still doesn't behave the way you do. -- ] (]) 21:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
::::::Agreed. I have (had?) a lot of respect for Roscelese. I disagree with her on just about everything, but we worked together cordially; recently, she has become impossible to work with and the behavior is spinning out of control. ] (]) 22:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
:::::::IMO Ros' default mode is surly. Ocassionally, thanks to my highly developed wit and refined sense of humor, I am able squeeze a grin or sometimes a chuckle out of her. For instance when I asked her if she and Haymaker were taking dance lessons together off-wiki. But don't get me wrong: it's a lot of work.<br> I agree with the other users here that lately she has been excessively rude, i.e. more than what's normal for her. She has even been ''snapping at me lately''. Yes--you read that correctly: me!!! Of all people. She actually called an extremely well written and relevant move proposal of mine "silly." . And she did it twice! I think she's depressed. The only trigger I can come up with is that ], aka ] (isn't that the coolest shortcut?), recently tagged it's 3000th article. I know she watches the talk page. It's tough for libs to see WP:RIGHT on it's way to surpassing MILHIST. While I can't take all of the credit for this phenomenal accomplishment, if you feel moved to give me a barnstar drop it off ]. <br>But seriously, she has a nasty bedside manner. Ask anyone. I think it's time for a block. Sarek: ]. &ndash; ] <sup>(])</sup> 23:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
::::::::This button?
::::::::{{trout}}
::::::::]--] 03:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::Good one. That's 2 trouts this week. Too bad it isn't Lent. Eh, I'll freeze 'em.&ndash; ] <sup>(])</sup> 03:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
*Totally coincidentally, the users complaining of my conduct here are mostly those users whose (straight male Catholic) POV-pushing I've been working against. I'm sure the block they're requesting would be very convenient for them. I'd appreciate further review of my conduct from ''uninvolved'' users, and would also suggest a more general review of the state of the talk pages of those two articles, which are showing an alarming tendency to devolve into frivolous complaints and discussions of user conduct at the drop of a hat. ] (] &sdot; ]) 23:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
:: Again, please don't put political intrigue in everything. So we are "straight male Catholic"? You forgot to say we are angry and white. -- ] (]) 23:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
:::Good one. But 1 small correction: I'm not white. WP to Sarek... WP to Sarek... Come in Sarek... &ndash; ] <sup>(])</sup> 00:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
::::Anyway, I thought the whole point of this thread was that ''I'' was angry. ;) ] (] &sdot; ]) 00:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
:::::@Ros -- For a "straight, male, Catholic" (your words, not mine) I consider myself to be very progressive. Did you know... That I have a homosexual friend? Yeah. Didn't expect that, did ya? And it's beside the point that I'm encouraging him to go to Exodus. &ndash; ] <sup>(])</sup> 01:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
::::::She also forgot to say that we are encouraging violence by talking about whacking people with fish. ] (]) 14:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
* Without reading the talk pages in question I'll note that comments about contributors instead of content are not a good sign. Have the users involved classified themselves as straight male Catholic:? ] (]) 19:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
:: Not me, I haven't provided these classifications to Roscelese. Only in my user page do I mention I am Catholic. And I don't remember mentioning sexual proclivities anywhere in Misplaced Pages. And I '''do''' resent this behavior of Roscelese - she keeps interpreting everything as a class struggle between patriarchal oppressors and female/homosexual victims. This makes her unable to get through different opinions on abortion, marriage, etc. -- ] (]) 20:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
:::Gosh, those female homosexuals, you just can't trust them to edit neutrally, can you? ] (] &sdot; ]) 21:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
:::: You have just confirmed my theory. Read exactly what I said above: "she keeps interpreting everything as a class struggle between patriarchal oppressors and female/homosexual victims". I '''never''' said that all women (or homosexual women, or whatever) do this. I never said that you do this because you are a woman. On the contrary, I know that '''most women do not do this'''. But you claim that I accused all the female homosexuals - '''something I never said'''. This just confirms what I said - you treat everything as a struggle and make Misplaced Pages a battleground. -- ] (]) 23:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
:::::If you're going to make this conversation about how queer women are ''just so touchy'', you sure as hell had better be prepared to back up what you're saying about my worldview with some evidence. ] (] &sdot; ]) 23:53, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
:::::: I never even said that homosexual women are touchy. -- ] (]) 00:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
::I don't know or care what the users themselves are, but the POV that they spend most of their time pushing is that of the supremacy of straight male Catholics, hence "straight male Catholic POV-pushing," not "POV-pushing by straight male Catholics." ] (] &sdot; ]) 20:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
::: First: you see political intrigue ("supremacy"? Really?) in *everything*, and this is a big part of what makes your behavior uncivil.
::: Second: your justification above doesn't cut. You say very uncivil things about our contributions ("idiotic", "nonsense", "stupid", "n00b"), and you think you are civil because you dont '''directly''' say these things to our persons. But I tell you: when you keep telling someone that his ideas are "idiotic", everyone will understand that you are calling him an idiot. Your mode of thinking in the sentence above ("I did not say they are straight male Catholic, I just say their POV is that of a straight male Catholic") is an example of this. This needs to stop. -- ] (]) 20:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
:I haven't seen that but this is a typical post from her "If you have nothing productive to say, there are probably Catholic forums at which you can complain about the eeeeeevil Jewish Misplaced Pages editor trying to censor you. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)" Such ad hominem attacks have happened before. ] (]) 20:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
:::Funny how you're not providing the context there, where you're accusing me of dismissing a source just because "they are Catholic and report on Catholic topics," even though I'd already stated multiple times that I was dismissing them because of their explicitly stated bias against the subject. You seem to be thinking that the fact that a source is Catholic ''makes'' it reliable and that I somehow can't see this because I am not Catholic, but accusing editors of anti-Catholicism because they aren't letting you use attack sources is not a good way to get what you want. ] (] &sdot; ]) 21:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
::::When did he accuse you of being anti-Catholic? ] (]) 23:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
:::::If someone said that a source (either a newspaper or a person) was unreliable because it was Catholic, wouldn't ''you'' think that was an anti-Catholic thing to say? That's the opinion Marauder40 is falsely accusing me of holding in spite of multiple comments to the contrary. ] (] &sdot; ]) 23:53, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
::::::As for the ad hominem attack I provided the diff, that is all the context that is needed. As for the time I allegedly called you anti-Catholic and you brought me to this page, EVERYONE except for you say I didn't call you anti-Catholic. The admins agreed. It was actually called a tempest in a teapot. Nothing about my statement called you anti-Catholic. The only person that felt that way was you. Feel free to search the archives of this page if you want the details. Another perfect example of trying to play the victim card. Typical par for the course.] (]) 01:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
::No, none of us has said all three things, Gerardw. And even if we did, it would still be uncivil. ] (]) 20:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
*I request, for the second time, ''uninvolved'' feedback on my conduct. If the users whose POV-pushing I work against wish to complain about me to each other, surely they can find a little echo-chamber of their own. I'd like to do something ''productive'' with this WQA report, not hear repeated ad infinitum the personal accusations and out-of-context quotes of those who'd like to get me blocked because of my content editing. ] (] &sdot; ]) 23:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
*:I'm not out to get you blocked. I just think your behavior has gotten out of control recently and I want you to get in back in control before you do get blocked. And if you want us to accomplish something, stop baiting people with your "straight male Catholic" stuff. That has nothing to do with it. Open a different request on all of us if you want. ] (]) 00:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
::It's offensive to imply that there is a unique straight male Catholic POV. How can you discern the difference between that and gay male Catholic, straight female Catholic, or straight male Protestant? Additionally you shouldn't be working against anything, you should be working ''for'' the encyclopedia. 10:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
:::#Do you disagree that working ''against'' POV-pushing is working ''for'' NPOV and working ''for'' the encyclopedia? This seems like an unnecessary semantic distinction.
:::#I didn't say that there is only one straight male Catholic POV, which is no surprise since it's not something I believe. ] (] &sdot; ]) 15:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
*This discussion above is getting hopelessly convoluted, so allow me to summarize:
:*AGF is not a suicide pact. As I said above, I'm more than ready to edit with these users and I think that in spite of our differences we can still do productive work together, but I don't see how it benefits the project to pretend that behavior like this represents a desire to ] (in each case, only one instance is presented, though in many cases the behavior has been repeated over and over long past the point of edit-warring):
::#inserting antisemitic BLP violations of the "]" nature ()
::#inserting low-quality attack sources long after their rejection by multiple noticeboards ()
::#misrepresenting reliable sources in order to claim secondary-source legitimacy for primary-source criticism ()
::#rejecting academic sources and making frivolous complaints in order to reduce or downplay Misplaced Pages's coverage of pro-choice Catholics (, )
::#inserting unsourced text intended to reflect negatively on the subject ()
::#claiming that an editor who rejects a source because of its explicitly stated bias against the subject really just wants to delete any source with a particular religious affiliation ()
:*The false accusations have got to stop. WQA is not a blog for complaining about users one dislikes with no evidence and no consequences. It's hardly surprising that JorgePeixoto hasn't been able to produce diffs for my calling him the names he says I called him, since I did not call him these names. (Amusingly, one of the things I said was that he was ''not'' a n00b. How he interpreted this to mean the exact opposite is beyond me.) Likewise his wild speculation about my worldview, or Marauder40's claim that I want to discard any Catholic source. What ''is'' surprising - and shameful - is that they aren't even bothering to try.
:*Something that I realize has gone unmentioned so far is the fact that ''I asked these users to bring this issue here''. The out-of-context nature of the diffs presented in the original report obscures the fact that on the various article talk pages in question, I had to ask these users at least ''five separate times'' to stop discussing contributors and start discussing content. And they still have not addressed the article-related questions I was trying to get them to discuss. Instead, they just complained more about me. I'm glad the discussion is here now instead of on an article talk page, but this is still why I've repeatedly asked for ''uninvolved'' review: unfortunately, this discussion has become, for the most part, yet another circle jerk about how oversensitive I am, how I don't recognize the authority of the Catholic Bishops, etc.
:--] (] &sdot; ]) 15:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
::::If you are going to respond to legitimate criticism of your behavior as "yet another circle jerk about how oversensitive I am, how I don't recognize the authority of the Catholic Bishops, etc." I am not sure how to move forward productively. - ] (]) 16:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
::: This is a very bad summary for many reasons. Some of them are:
::: 1) The information about George Soros has '''nothing''' with the fact the he "is" Jewish (by the way, he is atheist). You are manufacturing anti-semitism out of thin air.
::: 2) The sources were not misrepresented as you claim. I just don't think that a source has to contain a text verbatim to establish notability. If the communications office of the USCCB says "the CFC is not Catholic", and the New York Times says "the USCCB has rejected the CFC's claim of being Catholic" then the NYT establishes the notability of the USCCB judgement, even if it does not contain the text verbatim. So I can use a primary source to confirm the text verbatim, paired with a secondary source (that paraphrases the text) to establish its notability. This is very sensible.
::: 3) When I removed the part about "obstructing", I explained it was about removing POV. We don't have to reproduce verbatim the POV of the sources. NPOV is a non-negotiable Misplaced Pages policy.
::: 4) Don't misrepresent my claim. I '''explicitly''' said that you do not directly called me "stupid", "idiotic", etc. I say that you repeatedly insult my contributions with these words, thus making everyone understand that you are '''indirectly and sarcastically insulting me'''. The diffs containing "stupid", "idiotic", "nonsense" are mostly already above (posted by NYyankees51), which is why I didn't duplicate them. And when you said "you shouldn't have to be told this, you're not a n00b", this is a sarcastic way of saying that my contribution is worthy of a n00b. I don't say this kind of thing to you! You shouldn't say it to me.
::: 5) It is disingenuous to claim that you asked for us to "start discussing content". Do you call "discussing content"? I was trying to discuss content there, until you arrived (in a conversation that didn't previously involve you) and started attacking. -- ] (]) 15:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
::::Jorge, a point of order: George Soros never said he was atheist. He simply responded "no" when asked "Do you believe in God?" That's not equivalent to saying "I am an atheist". ] (]) 16:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
:::::Thank-you Roscelese for including the diff with your claim it is a perfect example of your taking what someone says and totally changing around the meaning and trying to play the victim card.] (]) 17:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I have filed an ] on the anti-Semitism charge. ] (]) 16:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

{{outdent}}
I am withdrawing myself from this thread; we're not getting anything constructive done here. I suggest all users do the same before things get any worse. ] (]) 18:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}
{{cob}}

== User:Legolas2186 ==

<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
* {{userlinks|Legolas2186}}
* {{la|Monster Ball Tour}}
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
I made one constructive edit to the above article (disputed an outlandish and unsourced claim) and was personally attacked by the above user. You can see what the user said and . I've decided not to engage the situation anymore, however I don't appreciate the attacks directed towards me and thought I would bring it up here. Thank you. ] (]) 03:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

:Where have you two tried to resolve your disagreement prior to bringing the issue here? <span style="text-shadow: 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em #DDDDDD">--] (])</span> 15:28, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

== ] ==

I have collided with this esteemed user's behaviour considered by me as impolite at ] started by me. God knows, I hadn't wanted any flame starting the AFD. I have contributed mainly in Ru-Wiki, not here, my contributions there are not considerable, but it isn't a reason to be impolite with me, is it? :) Please help. --] (]) 12:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

== AGF violation/ad hominem attacks by ] ==

<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
* {{userlinks|Legolas2186}}
* {{lut|Legolas2186}}
* {{la|Madonna (album)}}

=== The reason ===
It all started one day when browsing All Music Guide website. Suddenly I noticed that there is mentioned music ''genre A'' and music ''genre B'' on 1983 album by ]. Since All Music Guide is well-respected and reliable, I added an AMG reference as a proof that the above album is not only ''genre A'' but also ''genre B'' (without a proper reference it is considered as original research, obviously).
=== Behavior of the user ===
] reverted the edits of mine and it all seemed as "accidental" vandalism. However, the user even reverted my edits the second time although I asked him to . I even tried to resolve the situation by posting one of the generic "warning" templates on his . The disputer seemed to He even calls my actions which I find very offensive and disrespectful.

Aside from the irrelevant mini-infobox war, I personally request the etiquette assistance since this kind of disrespectful behavior and language is absolutely unacceptable on Misplaced Pages.

Thank you in advance. ] (]) 18:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

== Powered Skateboard Racing League ==

Sources of reference for Ppowered Skateboard Racing


Articles on Powered Skateboard Racing and on NAPSR, The National Association Of Powered Skateboard Racing author James Eric Hawkins August 12, 2011


www.encinovelobicycle club.com
www.napsar.bz
www.sports@dailynews.com
www.hd.net.com
www.Adrenalina World Tour 2011 marathon
Skateboarders Journal <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 04:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== ] ==

I am an occasional but relatively long-standing editor, who has had a few disagreements with the above user over issues of delinking and linking (although we are actually not that far apart on the issue really). Today I made about seven edits - either fairly open-minded observations on talk pages or minor content edits - including to a page they had been on recently. Anyway, is the following pattern of behaviour acceptable -

1) to describe people who disagree with them over the use of a hyphen, totally unprompted, as

2) to a "copyedit" tag onto the page, purely, it would seem on the basis of that one issue?

3) when another editor, ie me, comments on that (as noted above) in to suggest that the issues are , while noting the rudeness and that fact that prior edits had wrecked some formatting and taken out some pictures, to then immediately follow me to a totally unrelated page they have never edited before to me (and in doing that, restore inaccurate quotes from a novel, which I had removed. I can't believe they took the time to check or verify)?

4) to then and accuse me of "trolling" and warn me I will be blocked if I continue?

5) to remove a possibly firm but perfectly reasonable (crossed) comment that I had posted on his talk page with the edit summary

I am happy to discuss issues reasonably with Tony, but I am not willing to watch him accuse others of ignorance about fairly minor punctuation points; follow me and revert wrong information into an article he has never been to before simply to make a point against me; or accuse me of trolling, or posting vomit. <small>''']''' ''']/]'''</small> 14:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I notified ] of this thread, and that post was with the edit summary "removing more vomit". I am slightly at a loss now. <small>''']''' ''']/]'''</small> 14:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
:You return after six months, stalk me, revert me, carry on at my talk page—this is not a productive course of events, and taking the matter here is going to get nowhere. I'm not participating, and please do not post on my talk page again. ] ] 15:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
::Where have I "stalked" you? Where have I "carried on" at your talk page? Diffs? I think I have probably edited two pages where you have been previously in the 30-odd fairly minor edits and fixes I have made, sporadically, in the last two months, and, as noted above posted politely on your talk page once, and then once again to notify you of this thread (both of which you deleted while talking about "vomit"). <small>''']''' ''']/]'''</small> 15:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

As we're talking about wikiquette, I'd like to point out that , User N-HH reverted my edits with the summary 'rv vandalism by script ...'. And since we're talking about wikistalking, I'll also mention that of his 19 article edits since returning on 25 July, three have been reverting my changes. Draw your own conclusions. ] (]) 16:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
:You and Tony (and OhConfucius, among others) run through thousands of articles making systematic changes to do with links and other MOS issues. Many people have concerns about those changes and sometimes they actually genuinely mess pages up (as anyone glancing at your talk pages will see). I'm often going to turn up at some of those by chance (as I have just noticed I did in fact to the ] page - Tony had been there 6 months previously. My edit today was not to anything he had done). Or because you spark up my watchlist, as has also happened in the past. Beyond that, occasionally, sure I look at your contributions - as you have obviously just looked at mine. I ignore 98% of what I see, but sometimes think you've made a bad call on a link and reinsert some - but never all - of those you took out when you were there (or, on occasion, take more out). Often this can be many days after you passed by. This is not illegal. By contrast, today, Tony was suddenly appearing on a succession of pages within seconds of my editing there and blind-reverting my edits one after the other, edits that were entirely unrelated in terms of topic or type of edit. That is genuinely what ] is all about. It is worth reading - eg "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Misplaced Pages policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles". <small>''']''' ''']/]'''</small> 17:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC) 17:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 05:37, 29 November 2020

Historical document
This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference.
Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump.

Wikiquette assistance was an informal process, set up in March 2005, available to editors who felt that they were being treated uncivilly. There was discussion among the community about its effectiveness, and a consensus was formed to eliminate the Wikiquette assistance process. This page was formally marked inactive in September 2012.

If you require assistance with resolving a content issue, please see Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution.

For a similar noticeboard which was also discontinued and marked historical, see WP:PAIN.

Search the Wikiquette archives
Category: